Opinions

On 14 year-old YOG athlete Clarence Chew

Arts & Culture

Baybeats 2010: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

Arts & Culture

Sandcastle: a refreshing effort by Boo Junfeng

Arts & Culture

Baybeats 2010

Written on February 10, 2010 by The Kent Ridge Common

Email Story Printable version

Print Story

Should Pastor Rony be punished?

It's time for us to forgive Pastor Rony.

(photo credits:Stupa in PKS Singapore: Ion-Bogdan DUMITRESCU / Pastor Rony: Reuters)

Singapore — Despite publishing a public apology both on his personal and church’s website, there have been repeated calls for Pastor Rony Tan to face concrete punishment for the remarks he had made about Buddhist beliefs in the now infamous video interviews.

The video clips of Pastor Rony conducting the interview first surfaced in the Hardwarezone forum, before being heavily circulated through online social networking sites such as Facebook. The strong and incendiary video title enticed several thousand views instantly, and The Kent Ridge Common gave the issue its first media coverage in a feature on Saturday. When popular site aggregators such as The Singapore Daily started linking to the news article, there was no turning back. Several other socio-political as well as religious sites followed suit and opined on the issue, and it was just a matter of time before Pastor Rony had to assuage the riled response his video interviews had generated online.

Especially set against the backdrop of two youths who were arrested and charged for making racist comments in a Facebook group that some had suspected was set up innocuously, many started calling for more serious punishments to be meted out to Pastor Rony. There is no reason, as some have argued, that a public apology should suffice to warrant the matter closed, when more serious consequences were dealt to a pair of youths obviously in their juvenile and puerile periods. To the extent that certain individuals who call themselves Buddhist started spreading unpleasant comments of Pastor Rony on his Facebook group, the response to Pastor Rony’s comments in the video was heated and fervent by any measure.

After the government had stepped in on Monday when the Internal Security Department (ISD) called him in to explain his comments in the video, Pastor Rony published an urgent message online and apologized for potentially hurting the religious sensitivities of some Singaporeans. The fact that he was given front page coverage in the mainstream media and had several reports written about him showed how seriously the authorities were dealing with the matter.

The sincerity of his apology was doubted by some, even though Pastor Rony had visited in person Venerable Kwang Shen of the Singapore Buddhist Federation to offer his regret over the comments he had made in the video. But as to whether the written apology was a result of a sincere regret over the unfortunate comments proffered in the video, or if it were just a statement that he was coerced to come up with after the meeting with the Internal Security Department, this is not for us to judge or to comment on — simply because this is an answer only Pastor Rony would know with any apodictic certainty.

But what can be said now is this: Pastor Rony should not be punished any further for the series of video interviews responsible for landing him in this difficult situation. Why is this so?

At least on a prima facie level, Pastor Rony has already unreservedly published a series of public apologies for the nature of and the manner by which the video interviews were conducted. To add to this, he made personal trips down to the respective heads of religious communities to offer his apology in person, apologies which were accepted in good heart and forgiveness by the various leaders of the religious communities.

Secondly, we should consider the reasons grounding our calls for him to be punished even further by the law against sedition. Do we hope to see him fined, jailed — or both — so that our anger from his insensitive comments can be appeased through his suffering? To this, even the great religious figures of the Buddha and Jesus would disagree with this measure. We only need to take a leaf out of the recent experience of neighbouring Malaysians who recently was subject to attacks to their mosques where pig heads were hung and where churches were vandalized and destroyed. This arose out of a seemingly trivial instance of whether the word Allah could be used by Catholics in their publication. That such unfortunate consequences could ensue out of this should serve as a timely reminder not to trivialize any matter that may be an affront to the religious sensitivities of certain communities in Singapore, but also more importantly that as far as hate begetting hate is concerned, there can be no end.

Thirdly, consider the possible ramifications should Pastor Rony be subject to further punishments by the authorities. There is no doubt that certain segments of Singaporeans, as fervent as those who call for more punishment, will feel that he is too harshly punished. This may potentially create more ill-will among Singaporeans who may feel that another group is responsible for this result. These groups may coagulate more rigidly within their own circles and with lesser opportunities for interaction with others, misconceptions and prejudices may still remain or even be perpetuated. Such an unfortunate situation can be avoided — only if some of us are ready to take this situation as an opportunity to exercise our patience, compassion and forgiveness. As the Chinese philosopher Wang Yangming may say, belief is not true belief unless produced together with action. Learning about forgiveness, compassion and understanding in a Sunday school classroom is futile unless we put it into practice.

But does this mean that no further positive actions can be done to mend the wounds caused by the video interviews? Maybe not. For a starter, religious misconceptions about Buddhism still persist and are perpetuated by the videos. Perhaps Buddhist organizations should address the misconceptions held by Pastor Rony in the video interviews. Furthermore, if religious harmony is indeed a top priority, Pastor Rony should engage in more efforts to participate in inter-religious and inter-faith dialogues or activities to show that his commitment is serious. Through it, he may be presented with the opportunity to better understand the tenets of other religions and in this, appreciate the religious diversity as a beautiful thing in Singapore.

Taking it seriously does not mean that we should approach such a sensitive issue teetering on the brink of anger or deep frustration. We could very well approach this issue in a calm, objective and rational manner, and we must. Above all, learning to forgive and seeing this situation as a great chance for us to practice what our different religions teach us will surely be a sign that Singaporeans are big people with a heart that lets others learn from their mistakes.

626132 CommentsShould+Pastor+Rony+be+punished%3F2010-02-10+15%3A30%3A45The+Kent+Ridge+Common on "Should Pastor Rony be punished?"

The Singapore Daily » Blog Archive » Daily SG: 11 Feb 2010 on Thu, 11th Feb 2010 11:39 am

[...] the Panic Room: Rony Tan’s apology, and why it doesn’t really matter – The Kent Ridge Common: Should Pastor Rony be punished? – Gimme Some Truth!: Reactions to Pastor Rory’s Comments – The Lycan Times: Rony Tan – covered in [...]

Chris on Thu, 11th Feb 2010 4:54 am

oh please, he only says what is on the heart of most christians, if jesus is the only way, all others MUST be false

Chris Ong on Thu, 11th Feb 2010 6:18 am

Hi Chris,
Religion is ultimately a personal belief. You can hold onto it without necessarily transgressing boundaries that threaten the fabric of religious harmony.

Cheers
Chris

Chemgen on Thu, 11th Feb 2010 3:20 pm

Or rather should he be punished more? The dragging in mud of his name, church and even faith is severe punishment for one of his standing. Punishment is not all court and gaol, it is humiliation and being turned a social pariah. Who should decide the type and extent of the punishment? The state, the Christians, the Taoists-Buddhists or the lynch mob?

ger on Thu, 11th Feb 2010 3:45 pm

As you get older you attend many funerals. In multicultural Singapore
You attend many different kinds of funerals. Its not uncommon at all to attend for a Buddhist funeral and hear other Buddhists comment : Actually that is not true Buddhism.
True Buddhist will not have all this, burn this and that. Now even burn paper computers. Imagine that…paper Ipod also got…” Some people at the table smile a little. Imagine a Buddhist called B saying that. So its a Buddhist commenting on another Buddhist.
Scenario 1
Imagine X being at a table where that was said and later on telling the family who is grieving what was being said “ You know, he said that you are not true Buddhist and that all your funeral rites are nonsense. He made fun of you you know “ Imagine a family member being angry and confronting B “ Why you come here and insult me is it” “ Yeah lah “ adds X “ you think you true Buddhist meh. You want to criticize don’t come here and cause trouble. Get lost…get out get out ”
Scenario 2.
Imagine X listening to what B said but did not tell that to the bereaved family.
After the prayers, B with everyone else goes to the altar to pay respects. A member of the bereaved family comes round to the table and B gives his condolences and also paik kim. He asks about the circumstances surrounding the death, they reminisce about old times and then B leaves after exchanging well wishes.
There can be 2 different outcomes even if person B said the things he said.
The outcome of Scenario 1 is bitter and unpleasant. The outcome of Scenario 2 is pleasant. And the fact is, B had always been a good ex neighbor to the bereaved family.They had never quarrelled all these years.
Yes, they have a difference in opinion with regards to religion. But that difference in belief even if expressed does not mean they cannot be good neighbors. Bottomline it was not B who in expressing his beliefs caused the trouble but X who framed it in such a way as to stir up trouble who was the true trouble causer.

Justice on Thu, 11th Feb 2010 7:47 am

TODAY newspaper – February 10, 2010
http://imcms2.mediacorp.sg/CMSFileserver/document...
REASON PASTOR NOT ARRESTED
————————————–
…………… Despite this, Mr Tan Tarn How, a senior research fellow at the Institute of Policy Studies, believes that an opinion leader such as Pastor Tan should be dealt with more severely, compared to an ordinary individual. “An opinion leader has more influence. I think the pastor was let off too lightly,” said Mr Tan

Justice on Thu, 11th Feb 2010 7:59 am

To ger,

The burning of those paper stuff are not linked to Buddhism.

It's more a custom/tradition thing that Chinese do, world wide I would say, unless your religion forbids it.

LCC on Thu, 11th Feb 2010 9:22 am

Personally, while I am of the opinion that "warning and apology" is perhaps too little, I do not however agree with those advocating harsher punishment against Pastor Tan. In fact, I think a significant number of those advocating harsher punishment are more of having a personal vendetta against Christianity (and using this case to hit back at Christianity) rather than being pro-religious harmony/respect/understanding/goodwill.

To me, instead of focusing on the question of whether Pastor Tan should be punished, it will be more productive to focus on what can be done to reduce the likelihood, if not to totally prevent, of similar cases from occurring again. Admittedly, I think such cases will most probably occur again but we still ought try to take steps to at least reduce the likelihood of them occurring again.

Justice on Thu, 11th Feb 2010 9:58 am

LCC,

So u saying that if it happens again, another phone call, another warning,, another apology will do?

LCC on Thu, 11th Feb 2010 7:17 pm

To Justice,

If you read my comment carefully, you would see that I started off by saying this: “I am of the opinion that ‘warning and apology’ is perhaps too little”.

As a friend of mine said when we discussed this issue of whether Pastor Tan should be “punished”, many of those advocating harsher punishment for Pastor Tan seem to advocating punitive measures such as fine or jail term. However, there can be other forms of “punishment” which are harsher than “warning and apology” but need not go to the extent of “fine and jail”.

As my friend was proposing, Pastor Tan could also be made to undergo some form of rehabilitative education programme in which he have to learn more about other religions (specifically, Buddhism and Taoism) and write some form of learning report about his experiences.

Alternatively, Pastor Tan could be made to make a more public apology, in that since his disparaging remarks were made during his church service and then uploaded online, he could make a formal apology during his next church service and upload a video recording of it online (as my friend pointed out, even Edison Chen did a public apology on video).

However, if I may repeat myself, perhaps instead of just focusing our attention on the singular case of Pastor Tan, we should focus more attention on making systemic/structural changes to prevent, or at least reduce the likelihood, other “Pastor Tans” from emerging.

ger on Thu, 11th Feb 2010 9:20 pm

Thanks. Justice you are right, that was what the other person was commenting as I pointed out. ” Not true Buddhist”
In SGP, there are lots of people who call themselves Buddhist but there is a whole spectrum of beliefs and practices. The case I cited I have experienced more than once. The family would call themselves Buddhists but others on the table who are also Buddhist would then say that “well its not true Buddhism but a mixture of Buddhism and Taoism. “

ger on Thu, 11th Feb 2010 9:53 pm

The Allah case is oft cited together with this as to how important it is to maintain religious harmony and sensitivity.
But is the Allah case driven by religious concerns ? Maybe in Malaysia it may be difficult to see, but in SGP it should be clear that it is driven by political concerns using religion as a cover.
Even Malay Muslims have pointed that out.

Even for this case you noted that…

In fact, I think a significant number of those advocating harsher punishment are more of having a personal vendetta against Christianity (and using this case to hit back at Christianity) rather than being pro-religious harmony/respect/understanding/goodwill.

Just because someone is very angry and offended does not mean that someone else really did a bad thing.
For example, a waiter trips and spills a glass of water over a patron. What should the waiter do ? Well, he can apologize. Then the manager can also come to apologize and help the person dry up.
BTW just because the manager apologize does not mean he did something bad. Its just good manners. But quite often, the patron will be one to sieze the opportunity to raise a big ruckus and then say…” so how…how you compensate me ? ” and get a free meal or whatever.
There are also gracious patrons who if the manager were to start scolding the serving staff would intervene to say
” Hey’s its OK…it was just an accident. Water only…no worries “.
As with the Allah case and this case, social unrest was driven not by the actual
case but other covert agenda, as such
the systemic/structural changes to prevent disruption to social harmony
should not address so much future Pastor Tans because we already have much in place to address errant religious leaders.
That’s conventional warfare.
But just as warfare in changing to countering terrorism and that has
turned many a convention on warfare on its head, the Allah case, this case and even the AWARE Saga has shown that there is a change.
In the past, it was religious leaders who used their position and pulpit to stir up THEIR own flock to cause social unrest. Are Lighthouse christians causing social unrest…? No. So…its not the normal case. Now however it’s the others who are the real threat to social and religious harmony in Singapore. They are very much like terrorists who hide behind civilians
without any qualms for endangering the civilian population. In this case, these are people who without qualms threaten the social harmony like the person X at the funeral I mentioned. Is person X truly concerned for the family, the deceased or true Buddhism ? No. If he was, he would have done in it a much better way to achieve his objectives. He had a choice on how to respond and the way he responded revealed his true intents. For the waiter case, If the patron were to raise a terrible ruckus and loudly shout at the manager and staff…yes he may get a free meal but certainly ill will for being a nasty customer. If he were to be gracious ..he may very well get the free meal as well as good will. Asking for punishment is not going to help social harmony…it will forment ill will…because a large segment of christians will not buy the reason for it just like in the Allah case in Malaysia. Is that what true Buddhists would want ? If not true Buddhists…who ?

Deborah Hsu on Fri, 12th Feb 2010 3:17 am

The issue of utmost importance to me is the need to Rony Tan and his flock to "unlearn" all that has been told during their weekly meetings. The "apology" per se was NOT an apology, notwithstanding that he said it in person etc etc. The "apology" would have been complete if he had volunteered to have Buddhism sessions with the Buddhists and then each week have a short session on what he had learned.

Buddhist Scholar on Fri, 12th Feb 2010 7:20 am

Hi all. Interesting discussion over here but I'd like to mention that there are studies in religious syncreticism that argue against the conception of a 'True Buddhism' or 'True Confucianism/Daoism' even at its purest, elite level. Who/what determines which sutras are defined as the real Buddhism? What makes one thing Buddhist, and the other not? Again and again new archaeological discoveries such as those at Dunhuang throw new light on our understanding. In fact, studies by religious scholars such as Mollier seem to suggest that there is even a wholesale copying by Daoist sources from Buddhist once (read his article on how the discourse of the Jiuku Tianzun seem to be lifted from the 25th Chapter of the Lotus Sutra, the Pumen Pin) This issue also confronts other religions such as Christianity. Just some food for thought.

lee on Fri, 12th Feb 2010 7:34 am

If that is the case, why do you think that Rony needs to apologize and actually did? Should he hold his faith even when under persecution?

KJ Lim on Fri, 12th Feb 2010 8:35 am

I think nobody is forcing him to change his beliefs, but that his manner of presenting them threatens the religious harmony of Singapore.

Sebastian on Fri, 12th Feb 2010 8:37 am

pls dun use the words bad thing, very obviously already it is subjective.

right or wrong aside, its is indubitable that he made inaccurate statements in his video, period.

Stop revolving around anger, “badness”, negative punishment or revenge or point fingers. The point is, similarly to LCC, how not to let such a situation repeat, everyone were affected: the "others", the Lighthouse christians and the pastor.

One cant wait for a social unrest to really occur (which in this case it already did) before taking remedial action. It would already be too late. Far sight and preventive intervention is a better alternative.

I assume we're all Uni students, lets apply what we’ve learnt. be far sighted and critical. understand the real cause and consequences. take action not inaction. be succinct

Joeana on Fri, 12th Feb 2010 8:37 am

Pastor Rony Tan Blasts Buddhist Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EIrtk5V_t-Q

Pastor Rony Tan Blasts Buddhist Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKBzyatd880

Pastor Rony Tan Blasts Buddhist Part 3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEfQwBu5ZWE

Pastor Rony Tan Blasts Buddhist Part 4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4wKGg4mJ1g

Anonymous on Fri, 12th Feb 2010 9:21 am

LCC nice suggestion but here are some points.

1) Edison Chen made the video interview because he was too afraid of going back to HK and doing it in person. He might be killed by the local mafia he did.

2) Making Pastor Rony go through classes to improve his knowledge of Buddhism and then having to submit a 'report' might be seen as an insult to some, just like people who are caught littering may have to do corrective work order = pastor who makes comments on buddhism founded on misconceptions have to go through corrective learning process?

3) A public apology in church will seek to already embarrass him even further, and his congregation may feel that he has been persecuted one step too far.

The Singapore Daily » Blog Archive » Weekly Roundup: Week 07 on Sat, 13th Feb 2010 12:47 pm

chemgen on Sat, 13th Feb 2010 2:56 pm

Joeana

Thank you for highlighting the videos and further deepening the supposed Christian-Buddhist rift.

The original ones were gone as that person probably understood that the videos had made their impact and highlighted the pastor’s insensitivity. But someone else uploaded the new batch, wanting to push the issue even more when it was already clear the pastor was in the wrong, and even when the Buddhist and Taoist leaders have forgiven the pastor.

If there is any grave turn for the worse in this rift, it must be thanks to miraculoustv and people like you.

peter cheng on Mon, 15th Feb 2010 6:28 pm

Also why this Ex-monk not read the Buddhist Tri-Pitaka, there have many things about 84,000 Chapters.

Chanting is not real of Buddhist teaching, chanting is from Hindu but that Ex-monk said, Buddhist is chanting sutras only that mainly. When I told my friend about Ex-monk, my friend is very angry about Ex-monk.

I want know, why he want to become monk? please answer in any comment message, Ex-monk destroy Buddha teaching and tell lied.

Peter cheng

Seal on Tue, 16th Feb 2010 12:19 pm

This is interesting…a little bit of history from the past found this from another website :

It is time that we held church pastors and other faith leaders to higher levels of accountability for what they say in the name of God. It is time Christians (especially those attending megachurches with larger-than-life CEO senior pastors) realised that questioning your pastor doesn’t make you an infidel, it will provide you with an opportunity to strengthen your faith. Correcting your pastor when he’s clearly wrong is the right thing to do — he’s not infallible or omniscient (even if he may sound like a know-it-all or claim to have the “word of knowledge”).

Make no mistake about it — the words of scripture have been used throughout the ages to set people free, but they have also been used throughout the ages to keep people bound. Once upon a time, the idea of geocentrism (that the sun revolved around the earth) was church doctrine. Theologians and church fathers spent a lot of their time and energy defending from scripture the theory that the earth was fixed in its position (Ps 93:1, Ps 96:10, Ps 104:5, 1 Chr 16:30, Ecc 1:5), and to believe anything other than this was pure heresy and put you in grave danger of excommunication. In 1610, Galileo Galilei published a series of observations that he made with his new telescope that supported Copernicus’ theory of heliocentrism. That at once placed him at odds with the church and after a long and drawn out struggle over 23 years, an Inquisition examination found him guilty of heresy. He was placed under house arrest for the rest of his life (he was 70 then) and his books were banned. It took the church one century after Galileo’s death before his complete works were finally allowed to be republished (and not without some censorship) and almost another whole century before all traces of official Church opposition to heliocentrism were finally dropped. But yet, today, believe it or not, modern day geocentrists still exist, and they are all either Christians (mostly Catholics) or Jews.

The Bible has also been used to defend slavery. You don’t have to look too hard to see the plethora of references to slavery in the Old and New Testaments. Starting with the book of Genesis, slavery was given foundational justification — the curse of Ham left his defendants to perpetual captivity. In the New Testament, Paul writes in his first letter to Timothy, “Let as many slaves as are under the yoke count their own master worthy of all honour, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed.

And they that have believing masters, let them not despise them, but rather do them service.”

I can go on and on about the people who have used the Bible to oppose women’s rights, to oppose the idea of mixed marriages, to oppose the idea of evolution and how church leaders have used the harshest methods to deal with the “heretics” who didn’t toe the church doctrine.

Sure, today we can stand on the shoulders of those who have gone before us, and ask how the church leaders before our time could have gotten it all so wrong but as we do so, we must not forget that there are similar challenges for the Christians of today — homosexuality is one such challenge, global warming is another.

If Christians today choose to operate in a vacuum, looking at these issues without paying heed to what scientists are telling us, then they can only be doomed to repeat the mistakes of those who have gone before them.

Go ahead. Continue to use the Bible to clobber at gay people.
Go ahead. Continue to proof from the Bible that the world is just 5000 years old.
Go ahead. Continue to believe that global warming or evolution doesn’t exist.

You will find yourself left behind at the end of the day. And believe you me, I’m not talking about the Rapture here.

Sunny on Tue, 16th Feb 2010 1:34 pm

I am quite pleased that the Taoists, Confucian scholars and Buddhists are generally quite tolerant of one another. Today, we even see temples in Singapore which venerate saints of all three religions. When I was a child, my grandmother would take me to the Thian Hock Keng Temple to pray to the Confucius idol before my exam. In the main hall of this temple, there were idols of five Taoist deities. There was also a chamber behind the main hall where Buddhist idols were venerated. This is a good example of how the Taoists, followers of Confucius and Buddhists can co-exist in harmony. There are many other such good examples of mutual tolerance between them in both Singapore and abroad. Their mutual tolerance had reached such an extent. While I don't think that other religions need to revere the saints of other religions in order to show that they are tolerant, I think that it's very important for their leaders to promote mutual understanding and respect for one another. It has not been easy for Singapore to progress this far. I don't wish to see religious leaders to sabotage other religions and threaten the social stability in Singapore.

Sunny on Tue, 16th Feb 2010 1:53 pm

Hi,
Regarding the burning of joss, it is quite clear that it is not a Buddhist practice. But Buddhists don't prohibit this practice because it does display filial piety. Why do people spend good money to buy these paper items to burn into ash? Out of hope that their deceased family would live better in another world. As we all know, Buddhists, just like Taoists and Confucian scholars, ardently promote filial piety. So, while Buddhists don't believe that this practice can deliver the deceased from sufferings, they are pleased that the INTENTION is good. Secondly, the practice supports the premise that there is an after-life, and that there are hells where evil-doers go after their death. Buddhists are pleased to support this belief, because it warns people not to do evil. Additionally, Buddhists believe that they have to fit into the cultural setting they are in. Since the Chinese have had such a practice, especially since Tang Dynasty, Buddhists are neutral to this practice. They don't oppose to it or promote it. But where people request for this practice to be included in a Buddhist ritual, Buddhists may do so, and, of course, be sure to include Buddhist practices as well.

skeptic on Wed, 17th Feb 2010 4:39 am

No he shouldn't. Because even morons should have the right to free speech.

ThinkAgain on Wed, 17th Feb 2010 3:58 pm

38 Point-by-point Clarifications of Misconceptions
in Pastor Rony Tan’s Vids can be seen @
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DharmaNews/message/... :-] Amituofo

barker on Thu, 18th Feb 2010 3:42 pm

hear, hear. why rely on the government to step in and intervene? it should be the people who decide whether they want to hear more or not.

Lee / not religious on Thu, 18th Feb 2010 9:45 pm

While if he can go to his heaven as soon as possible it would be nice…many don't want to go to his heaven…Be with beings like him in this world already feel like in hell…

Have Peace Pastor… You are Chinese and your ancestor are from China / Asia… learn to respect your own cultures and ancestors… Don't have wars because of the religions… Have peace… Learn histories… which religions do the most killing, raping…of innocent people…. perhaps Yours ???

Don't be ignorance, afraid, sared, greedy and confused…

Have peace Pastor… All of our time will come… If you like your heaven so much, please go as soon as possible by yourself… Thank you very much…

Irony on Thu, 25th Feb 2010 1:27 am

Who are the ones perpetuating the hate and disharmony now? The culprits are those who ripped the video off his website (an offence) and post them up on You Tube and other places. The aim is surely to get more Buddhists and gays angry with Ps Rony and Christians. They are the ones who should be arrested for causing more 'social unrest'.

Be Fair on Thu, 25th Feb 2010 1:31 am

While I agree that there is no necessity to mock other religions when you preach the gospel of Jesus Christ, I can’t help but think that a double standard exists.

I recall that when the Da Vinci Code movie and book were popular here, it upset many Christians like myself and caused many of us to question our faith. It also caused many non-Christians to believe that the whole Christian faith was a hoax. Yet, nothing was done about it, though I am sure many Christians voiced their concerns and hoped that the movie and book would be banned.

To make matters worse, well-watched documentary TV channels took advantage of the movie’s popularity and aired documentaries (such as the Gospel Of Judas) here that further undermined the Christian faith. These documentaries, the movie and similar publications said many things which Christians regard as blasphemous. For example, they disputed the death and resurrection of Jesus, a fundamental truth of Christianity, and said that He had sex and hence children with Mary Magdalene.

So I can’t help but think that it is somehow okay to “mock” or “test” Christians here, but not believers of other faiths. (Don’t get me wrong. I am NOT saying that it is right to mock other religions.)

No one doubts that such movies and books would never be allowed in Singapore if they were undermining, say, Islam. Can you imagine what would happen if a Da Vinci Code type of movie and book about the Muslim faith were to be screened and sold here?

So why do the other faiths here seem to enjoy more protection than the Christian faith? Were the movie, documentaries and books permitted to be shown and sold in Singapore because Christians here were not vocal enough, that is, we did not protest in the streets or call for the death of Dan Brown? Must it come to that before we are heard? Didn’t the religious harmony bill speak loud enough for us?

Perhaps we are seen as more tolerant, less volatile — hence it’s okay to push the boundaries when it comes to content that undermines and mocks the Christian faith.

I really hope that in future, Christians here can enjoy the same amount of protection the other faiths here enjoy. Let’s be fair.

NUS graduate on Thu, 25th Feb 2010 3:49 am

Hi guys

Personally,i think we should forgive Pastor Rony Tan and moved on. However, as an ex-christian myself,i cannot help to hide the fact that all along, many churches and pastors used their sunday services to mock ,degrade and made fun of Taoism and Buddhism almost every opportunity and this is an open secret. Many in the congregation were influenced and they wage their little "evangelisticstic wars" against these two religions later in the confines of their homes, their schools,workplace and even army camps.
Although Taoism and Buddhism normally tolerated and endure this belittling quietly, this is not good for our society as there will be a lingering disdain against certain religions which inevitably will lead to their discrimination in our society.

Other Reviews

Proper Reasons for Orchard Flood, please
Authorities have switched their official explanation for the cause of ...

Did he obstruct justice or did he not?
AN usual situation has developed between Singapore Press Holdings (SPH) ...

Should new citizens serve compulsory time at the grassroots level?
Much has been said about the integration of immigrants and ...

OTHER NEWS HEADLINE

Feature

Sandcastle: a refreshing effort by Boo Junfeng
by Melissa Koh